Defamation case: Next hearing on Rahul Gandhi’s plea fixed for Aug 4

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday sought responses from former Gujarat minister Purnesh Modi and the state government on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s appeal challenging the high court verdict that declined to put on hold his conviction in a defamation case over his “Modi surname” remark.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and P K Mishra issued notices to Purnesh Modi, who had filed a criminal defamation case in 2019 against Gandhi over his “How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname?” remark made during an election rally at Kolar in Karnataka on April 13, 2019, and the Gujarat government on Gandhi’s appeal.
“The limited question at this stage is whether the conviction deserves to be stayed,” the bench observed.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Gandhi, said the Congress leader has suffered for 111 days, lost one Parliament session and is about to lose another session. Singhvi said the only urgency is that by-election for Wayanad constituency from where Gandhi was elected and was later disqualified from Lok Sabha upon his conviction and two-year sentence in the defamation case, can be announced at any moment.
At the outset Justice Gavai made it clear that his late father RS Gavai though not a Congress member was closely associated with the party for more than four decades and was Member of Parliament and MLA with its support. He said his brother is also a politician. “If anyone has any problem with my background then please let me know,” Justice Gavai told Singhvi and senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Purnesh Modi.
Both Singhvi and Jethmalani said that although they knew these facts, they don’t have any objection to Justice Gavai hearing this matter.
The apex court has posted the matter for further hearing on August 4 and asked Jethmalani and counsel for Gujarat government to file their replies along with written submissions.
In his appeal filed on July 15, Gandhi has said that if the July 7 judgment is not stayed, it would lead to throttling of free speech, expression, thought, and statement.
PTI

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.